Active surveillance in patients with a complete clinical response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal- and gastroesophageal junction cancer.

Tamara J Huizer, Sjoerd M Lagarde, Joost J M E Nuyttens, Lindsey Oudijk, Manon C W Spaander, Roelf Valkema, Bianca Mostert, Bas P L Wijnhoven, SANO- study group
Author Information
  1. Tamara J Huizer: Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  2. Sjoerd M Lagarde: Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  3. Joost J M E Nuyttens: Department of Radiation Oncology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  4. Lindsey Oudijk: Department of Pathology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  5. Manon C W Spaander: Department of Gastroenterology, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  6. Roelf Valkema: Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  7. Bianca Mostert: Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
  8. Bas P L Wijnhoven: Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal- and gastroesophageal junction cancer induces tumor regression. In approximately one fourth of patients, this leads to a pathological complete response in the resection specimen. Hence, active surveillance may be an alternative strategy in patients without residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Previous studies have shown that the combination of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies, endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes, and a PET-CT-scan can be considered adequate for the detection of residual disease. So far, it has been unclear whether active surveillance with surgery as needed is a safe treatment option and leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This review will discuss the current status of active surveillance for esophageal and junctional cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. BMC Cancer. 2016 Jul 19;16:503 [PMID: 27435280]
  2. Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jul;19(7):965-974 [PMID: 29861116]
  3. Ann Surg. 2014 Nov;260(5):807-13; discussion 813-4 [PMID: 25379852]
  4. Ann Surg. 2013 Nov;258(5):678-88; discussion 688-9 [PMID: 24096766]
  5. Med Sci Monit. 2022 Feb 25;28:e934106 [PMID: 35210388]
  6. Lancet. 2021 Aug 28;398(10302):759-771 [PMID: 34454674]
  7. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Apr 1;106(5):998-1009 [PMID: 31987972]
  8. BMC Cancer. 2023 Apr 10;23(1):327 [PMID: 37038138]
  9. Endoscopy. 2019 Apr;51(4):326-332 [PMID: 30497088]
  10. Lancet. 2018 Jun 23;391(10139):2537-2545 [PMID: 29976470]
  11. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016 Sep;20(9):1541-6 [PMID: 27260525]
  12. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(9):1090-1098 [PMID: 26254683]
  13. World J Surg. 2015 Oct;39(10):2492-9 [PMID: 26170156]
  14. Br J Surg. 2018 Nov;105(12):1630-1638 [PMID: 29947418]
  15. BMC Cancer. 2020 Mar 6;20(1):194 [PMID: 32143580]
  16. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Jan;48(1):176-185 [PMID: 32572560]
  17. Chin Med J (Engl). 2022 Sep 20;135(18):2143-2156 [PMID: 36525602]
  18. Eur J Cancer. 2021 Feb;144:232-241 [PMID: 33373868]
  19. Gastroenterology. 2020 Feb;158(3):494-505.e6 [PMID: 31711920]
  20. N Engl J Med. 2022 Feb 3;386(5):449-462 [PMID: 35108470]
  21. Endoscopy. 2021 Nov;53(11):1098-1104 [PMID: 33652496]
  22. Ann Surg. 2022 Feb 1;275(2):e392-e400 [PMID: 32404661]
  23. Int J Cancer. 2023 Mar 15;152(6):1183-1190 [PMID: 36250325]
  24. Trials. 2021 May 17;22(1):345 [PMID: 34001287]
  25. Ann Surg. 2020 Feb;271(2):245-256 [PMID: 31188203]
  26. Br J Surg. 2022 Feb 1;109(2):169-171 [PMID: 34750625]
  27. Radiat Oncol. 2021 Jan 19;16(1):16 [PMID: 33468176]
  28. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Apr;94(4):906-12 [PMID: 10201455]
  29. Br J Surg. 2016 Dec;103(13):1874-1879 [PMID: 27620361]
  30. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021 Dec;162(6):1632-1641 [PMID: 33268125]
  31. J Clin Oncol. 2021 Jun 20;39(18):1995-2004 [PMID: 33891478]
  32. Dis Esophagus. 2022 Feb 11;35(2): [PMID: 34286823]
  33. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 May;103(5):1661-1667 [PMID: 28385375]
  34. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020 Nov;20(11):651-668 [PMID: 32433532]
  35. World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Aug 7;26(29):4218-4239 [PMID: 32848330]
  36. Endoscopy. 2022 Dec;54(12):1131-1138 [PMID: 35668664]
  37. J Pathol. 2023 Jan;259(1):35-45 [PMID: 36196486]
  38. Ann Surg. 2022 Mar 1;275(3):467-476 [PMID: 34191461]
  39. N Engl J Med. 2021 Apr 1;384(13):1191-1203 [PMID: 33789008]
  40. J Surg Res. 2021 Jan;257:554-571 [PMID: 32927322]
  41. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1697-1708 [PMID: 27776843]
  42. N Engl J Med. 2012 May 31;366(22):2074-84 [PMID: 22646630]
  43. Lancet. 2021 Jul 3;398(10294):27-40 [PMID: 34102137]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0chemoradiotherapycancersurveillancepatientsactiveneoadjuvantgastroesophagealjunctionesophageal-leadscompleteresponseresidualdiseaseesophagealjunctionalNeoadjuvantinducestumorregressionapproximatelyonefourthpathologicalresectionspecimenHencemayalternativestrategywithoutPreviousstudiesshowncombinationesophagogastroduodenoscopybite-on-bitebiopsiesendoscopicultrasoundfineneedleaspirationsuspectedlymphnodesPET-CT-scancanconsideredadequatedetectionfarunclearwhethersurgeryneededsafetreatmentoptionnon-inferioroverallsurvivalcomparedstandardesophagectomyreviewwilldiscusscurrentstatusActiveclinicalwatchfulwaiting

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.